Data Privacy

1.2 Vocabulary Builder

An extensive lexicon is essential for articulating your privacy rights effectively.

• Constitutional Privacy: Rights related to privacy explicitly or implicitly protected by a country’s constitution.
• Common Law: Law derived from judicial decisions, rather than from statutes or constitutions.
• Privacy Tort: A civil wrong that interferes with a person’s right to be let alone or freedom from unwarranted publicity. Common types include intrusion upon seclusion, public disclosure of private facts, false light, and appropriation of likeness.
• Wiretapping: The act of monitoring phone or internet communications without consent.
• Surveillance: The close observation of a person or group, especially by a government or police.
• Fourth Amendment (US): Protects people from unreasonable searches and seizures by the government.
• Fundamental Right: A right considered by a legal system to be so important that it is protected from government infringement.

1. The protection against unreasonable searches and seizures in the US is rooted in the _____.
2. A civil wrong that interferes with an individual’s right to be left alone is known as a _____.
3. Laws derived from judicial decisions rather than statutes are part of _____.
4. The act of monitoring phone calls or internet communications secretly is called _____.
5. Many modern privacy laws treat privacy as a _____.
6. Rights related to privacy that are explicitly or implicitly protected by a country’s highest legal document are referred to as _____.
7. The act of closely observing a person or group, especially by government or police, is called _____.

1.3 Grammar Guide: Used to

“Used to” is a structure we use to talk about past habits or situations that no longer happen or exist. It’s always used to describe something in the past. The main thing to remember is that only the subject (I, you, we, they, he, she, it) changes—everything else stays the same. The phrase “used to” itself shows the action happened in the past and does not happen now.

Subject + used to + base form of verb

Instructions: Fill in the blanks below with the correct form using “used to” + verb.

1. Before data privacy laws existed, organizations _____ (share) personal information freely, without considering consent.
2. Governments _____ (store) citizen records without encryption or access controls.
3. Early companies _____ (sell) customer data to third parties with little oversight.
4. Hospitals _____ (keep) patient files in unlocked cabinets.
5. Individuals _____ (trust) that personal letters and phone calls were private without legal guarantees.
6. Policymakers _____ (think) about privacy mainly in terms of physical space, not information.
7. Banks _____ (publish) client lists in public directories.
8. People _____ (be) unaware of how their information was collected and used.
9. Researchers _____ (gather) large amounts of personal data without informing participants.
10. Employees _____ (access) sensitive records unrelated to their work.
11. Citizens _____ (not question) how their data was handled by authorities.
12. Websites and online services _____ (not display) privacy policies or data notices.
13. Archivists _____ (store) documents in open stacks, accessible to anyone.
14. Journalists _____ (report) on private lives with fewer ethical or legal limitations.
15. Legislators _____ (overlook) the need for specific protections for personal information.

1.4 Did You Know?

The modern legal concept of privacy in the United States is often traced back to an 1890 Harvard Law Review article titled “The Right to Privacy” by Samuel D. Warren and Louis Brandeis. They argued for a “right to be let alone” in response to intrusive journalism and emerging technologies like photography. This article significantly influenced the development of privacy torts and constitutional privacy rights.

1.5 Grammar Guide: Didn’t used to

Instructions: Each sentence is about past data privacy practices. Pick the correct verb from the three options in parentheses and complete the sentence using the negative form “didn’t use to.” And remember in the simple past tense in English, the verb does not change. It is “didn’t” for every subject.

Subject + didn’t use to + base verb

1. Researchers _____ (gather / grade / give) large amounts of personal data without informing participants.
2. Employees _____ (access / anchor / arm) sensitive records unrelated to their work.
3. Citizens _____ (question / complain / quit) how their data was handled by authorities.
4. Websites and online services _____ (display / complain / learn) privacy policies or data notices.
5. Archivists _____ (store / display / report) documents in locked stacks; they were accessible to anyone.
6. Journalists _____ (report / anchor / access) on private lives with strict ethical or legal limitations.
7. People _____ (lock / report / gather) their mailboxes or shred personal letters.
8. Companies _____ (sell / learn / report) customer information with consent.
9. Students _____ (learn / sell / store) about data security in school.
10. Governments _____ (collect / anchor / quit) census data online.
11. Doctors _____ (share / burn / learn) medical records only with patient approval.
12. Banks _____ (require / access / show) strong passwords for online accounts.
13. Consumers _____ (read / lock / report) terms and conditions before accepting them.
14. Law enforcement _____ (need / want / quit) warrants to search personal documents in some cases.

1.6 Client Call: Then and Now

Instructions: In two minutes, prepare a one to two-minute statement for a client. Use “used to” and “didn’t use to” to describe how data privacy practices and expectations have changed over the years. Focus on concrete examples.

Sample Lead-in Lines:

• “Hi Bill, this is Jim calling. I just wanted to fill you in on a couple of the significant changes that have happened in data privacy lately…”
• “Hey Bill, Jim here. I was hoping to quickly walk you through some key shifts we’ve observed in the data privacy landscape recently…”

Sample Closing Lines:

• “…And if you have any questions at all about these changes, please don’t hesitate to let me know.”
• “…So that’s a quick overview of how things have evolved. Feel free to reach out if anything isn’t clear.”

1.7 Prepositions: “to” vs. “for”

Instructions: Complete the sentences with the correct preposition (to or for).

1. The court’s ruling was a significant step _____ privacy rights.
2. The case set a precedent _____ future interpretations of the 4^th Amendment.
3. Individuals have a right _____ privacy in their communications.
4. The police obtained a warrant _____ the search.
5. This decision applied _____ electronic surveillance.
6. The attorney argued _____ greater protections under the law.
7. The evidence was crucial _____ the prosecution’s case.
8. The witness was called _____ testify about the incident.
9. This law provides safeguards _____ personal data.
10. The Supreme Court’s opinion was addressed _____ the legal community.
11. Legislators introduced a bill _____ strengthen privacy regulations.
12. Consent is required prior _____ the collection of personal information.
13. These policies are relevant _____ organizations handling sensitive data.
14. The company is responsible _____ notifying individuals of a data breach.
15. The new regulation applies _____ both public and private entities.
16. The court’s ruling was a significant step _____ privacy rights.
17. The case set a precedent _____ future interpretations of the Fourth Amendment.
18. Individuals have a right _____ privacy in their communications.
19. The police obtained a warrant _____ the search.
20. This decision applied _____ electronic surveillance.

1.8 Case Study: Katz v. United States (1967)

Katz v. United States is a pivotal US Supreme Court case that revolutionized the interpretation of the Fourth Amendment’s protection against unreasonable searches and seizures, profoundly impacting electronic surveillance and, by extension, digital privacy. Charles Katz used a public phone booth to transmit illegal gambling wagers. The FBI, without a warrant, attached an electronic listening and recording device to the exterior of the phone booth, capturing his conversations. Katz was convicted based on these recordings.

The central question before the Supreme Court was whether the Fourth Amendment protected Katz’s conversations in a public phone booth. Previously, Fourth Amendment jurisprudence largely focused on physical trespass into constitutionally protected areas like homes or offices. The government argued that since the device was on the exterior of the booth and there was no physical trespass, no Fourth Amendment violation occurred.

In a landmark decision, the Supreme Court overturned Katz’s conviction, famously declaring that “the Fourth Amendment protects people, not places.” Justice Harlan’s concurring opinion introduced the “reasonable expectation of privacy” test, which has since become foundational to Fourth Amendment analysis. This two-pronged test asks: (1) did the individual exhibit an actual (subjective) expectation of privacy? and (2) is the expectation one that society is prepared to recognize as “reasonable” (objective)? The Court reasoned that Katz had a reasonable expectation that his conversation would remain private even in a public phone booth, as he had enclosed himself to exclude the uninvited ear.

Katz fundamentally shifted the focus of Fourth Amendment analysis from property rights to privacy rights. It extended constitutional protections to electronic communications and informal agreements, recognizing that an individual could have a reasonable expectation of privacy even in a public space. This decision laid the groundwork for future privacy rulings concerning emerging technologies, influencing legislation and judicial reasoning on issues ranging from wiretaps to data collected from digital devices. It remains a cornerstone of privacy law, asserting that what a person knowingly exposes to the public is not subject to Fourth Amendment protection, but what he seeks to preserve as private, even in an area accessible to the public, may be constitutionally protected.

1.9 Mock Debate Activity

Instructions: Students must critically analyze the implications of the Katz v. United States decision, and to apply the concepts of privacy and constitutional rights to real-world situations involving electronic surveillance.

• Did Katz have a “reasonable expectation of privacy” in a public phone booth? Why or why not?
• Should the Fourth Amendment focus more on protecting people’s privacy or on preventing government trespass?
• How do new technologies (e.g., cell phones, email, surveillance cameras) challenge traditional interpretations of the Fourth Amendment?
• What are the risks and benefits of allowing the government to conduct warrantless electronic surveillance?